Killing civillians.....

[Jon_in_london]

When did it become a bad thing (terrorism?) to bomb civillians...?

[Jon_in_london]

Well, it certainly want terrorism in WWII! Was it terrorism to kill civillians indiscrimately after WWII or at some later date?

[AfaintcoldcupofTea..]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
When did it become a bad thing (terrorism?) to bomb civillians...?
Do you think it is acceptable to bomb civilians? A very strange question to ask.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
When did it become a bad thing (terrorism?) to bomb civillians...?

Terrorism is not the bombing of civilians. Terrorism is the TARGETING of civilians. Firebombing an enemy city during a time of war is not terrorism. Nuclear-bombing an enemy city during a time of war is not terrorism.

Blowing up a busload/planeload/bar-full of people who were guilty of nothing other than being in the wrong place, at the wrong time IS terrorism.

...and when a guy can read and agree with a rambling justification of terrorism, written by a mass-murdering terrorist, that makes him a SUPPORTER OF TERRORISM.

I will not participate in a blatantly slanted poll crafted by a known terrorist supporter.

-z

[AfaintcoldcupofTea..]

Are you, asking is there a difference between the governments doing so and so called fundamental extremists?

I, really do not understand what you are specifically asking ?

[Jon_in_london]

Terrorism is not the bombing of civilians. Terrorism is the TARGETING of civilians. Firebombing an enemy city during a time of war is not terrorism. Nuclear-bombing an enemy city during a time of war is not terrorism.

Blowing up a busload/planeload/bar-full of people who were guilty of nothing other than being in the wrong place, at the wrong time IS terrorism.


My Great-Aunt was killed by a bomb in 1940. She was guilty of nothing.. but she want killed by terrorists was she? So according to your logic, so long as war has been declared, you can kill whoever you so chose?

So if I declare war on the US, I can kill as many civillians as I like and not be a terrorist?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by AfaintcoldcupofTea..
Are you, asking is there a difference between the governments doing so and so called fundamental extremists?

I, really do not understand what you are specifically asking ?

Well, we know it was fine to target civillians in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Dont we?

So when did it become a bad thing to target civillians?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


My Great-Aunt was killed by a bomb in 1940. She was guilty of nothing.. but she want killed by terrorists was she? So according to your logic, so long as war has been declared, you can kill whoever you so chose?

So if I declare war on the US, I can kill as many civillians as I like and not be a terrorist?

You are misinformed.

War has rules...you may not "kill whomever you like". Your relative was killed during a war. That is a tragedy, but understandable. Many people's relatives were killed in war. War is horrible, but since it is caused by the failure of diplomacy between nation-states it is hard to avoid.

When people kill other people outside of war it is called murder. You're just as dead, so it's just as horrible to those affected...but the responsibility is on the person(s) who comitted that murder, not a nation-state. Terrorism is murder...not war. When people are killed during war it is out of a strategic necessity. When people are killed during war and it's not a strategic necessity (Nazi death camps for instance) it becomes a war crime...and there are rules concerning this.

Terrorism has no rules.

Now, I know you are not stupid...so this little lecture was likely not even needed. Why don't you explain to us instead your reasons for supporting terrorism?

-z

[AfaintcoldcupofTea..]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Well, we know it was fine to target civilians in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Dont we?

So when did it become a bad thing to target civilians?

Casualty's of war occur. It's not pleasant or acceptable but it does happen. Nobody who is in a war goes all out to hunt down innocent bystanders do they?

Targeting civilians deliberately, are not casualty's of war. That is a malicious cold hearted deliberate move. Very different.

[Crossbow]

Jon_in_london:

I believe that the fundamental issue you are searching for is that wars are carried out by nations,
whereas terrorism is carried out by individuals.

And the fact is, that nations do not have be follow the same rules that individuals do.

[AfaintcoldcupofTea..]

Would you care to explain what is the logic in planting bombs in a shopping centre, knowing there is a high likelihood that children will be within the vicinity?

[AfaintcoldcupofTea..]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Jon_in_london:

I believe that the fundamental issue you are searching for is that wars are carried out by nations,
whereas terrorism is carried out by individuals.

And the fact is, that nations do not have be follow the same rules that individuals do.
Query, Nations do, and individuals don't do you mean?

[Cain]

Originally posted by rikzilla


You are misinformed.

War has rules...you may not "kill whomever you like". Your relative was killed during a war. That is a tragedy, but understandable. Many people's relatives were killed in war. War is horrible, but since it is caused by the failure of diplomacy between nation-states it is hard to avoid.

When people kill other people outside of war it is called murder. You're just as dead, so it's just as horrible to those affected...but the responsibility is on the person(s) who comitted that murder, not a nation-state. Terrorism is murder...not war. When people are killed during war it is out of a strategic necessity. When people are killed during war and it's not a strategic necessity (Nazi death camps for instance) it becomes a war crime...and there are rules concerning this.

Terrorism has no rules.

Now, I know you are not stupid...so this little lecture was likely not even needed. Why don't you explain to us instead your reasons for supporting terrorism?

-z

The definition of "terrorism" has steadily changed over the years. You're correct to say that war has rules, and those rules were blatantly violated by the Founding Fathers in our American Revolution. Remember how the colonists resorted to "cowardly" guerrilla tactics against the British. We learn about that in fifth grade, and the situation does not go without comment from som especially patriotic young man, "Damn, those Brits are as dumb as they look."

-Cain, tired of using this tired example on this tired topic.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Jon_in_london:

I believe that the fundamental issue you are searching for is that wars are carried out by nations,
whereas terrorism is carried out by individuals.

And the fact is, that nations do not have be follow the same rules that individuals do.

So basically, If me and my followers gain sufficient recognition as a nation state, I can kill as many civillians as I like?

[Jon_in_london]

Provided we declare war first, of course!

[Mr Manifesto]

For the definition of terrorist, read my signature.

Here (http://www.iraqcrisis.co.uk/resources.php?idtag=R3E7B23F4E150E) is a bloody interesting article on the US military's view on reducing civilian casualties. Even though this is pure, pre-prepared spin, there is still an interesting contradiction. Check it out:

However, as we evaluate targets potentially to be struck, we do look to ensure that we -- that we stay clear of sites that are intended to be protected, like schools, mosques, civil buildings that have no military value, certainly residence areas. We need to ensure that when we find targets that are what we'll call dual use, and we'll talk a little bit about that later, that we are very prudent in the way we strike those so as to minimize any potential damage or danger to noncombatants.

In the end, however, occasionally, though, noncombatants are injured and killed, and we do have some structures that are damaged. And our intent is to have a process that not only looks to determine the target's validity, if you will, but then find a means to strike that target to gain the desired military effect without creating an undue effect on noncombatants or surrounding structures.


Later, same talk:

And then, the other target category that is a challenge for us is where the human shields that we've talked of before might be used. And you really have two types of human shields. You have people who volunteer to go and stand on a bridge or a power plant or a water works facility, and you have people that are placed in those areas not of their own free will. In the case of some of the previous use of human shields in Iraq, Saddam placed hostages, if you will, on sensitive sites in order to show that these were human shields, but, in fact, they were not there of their own free will. Two separate problems to deal with that, and it requires that we work very carefully with the intelligence community to determine what that situation might be at a particular location.

(my emphasis- the CentCom offical hasn't learnt to speak in red yet)

Now, I don't know whether water works facilities or power plants are protected under the Geneva convention. But how can you target these sites and not expect civilian casualties? Do you expect the military to run these sites during the war? Even after you write off the civilians working at such places, what about those who die because they can't get water or power?

What real military value to these places have? They do have some value, but why not concentrate on things like bases, ammo stockpiles, communication networks, and the like? Why bother with the water and power, especially when you consider that you're going to have to rebuild the country again?

Many questioins. Any answers?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

But how can you target these sites and not expect civilian casualties? Do you expect the military to run these sites during the war? Even after you write off the civilians working at such places, what about those who die because they can't get water or power?


The goal in war is to defeat your enemy, while A) reducing the number of your own casulties, and B) Reduce the total number of civilian deaths. One of the best ways to do that is to make sure the war ends quickly.

Now, while it is true that targeting water/power plants may lead to civilian deaths (both directly through the bombing, and indirectly), a decision must be made: If bombing power plants causes a war to end one week sooner, that will be one less week for the war to result in casulties on both sides.

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

What real military value to these places have? They do have some value, but why not concentrate on things like bases, ammo stockpiles, communication networks, and the like? Why bother with the water and power, especially when you consider that you're going to have to rebuild the country again?


What makes you think they aren't already concentrating on bases, stockpiles, etc? The US had the resources to go after both targets; why shouldn't they, if they think it can end the war sooner (with fewer casulties on both sides)? Do you have any proof that they neglected more legitimate military targets in favour of attacking power/water plants?

There are several reasons why power stations are good targets:
- Less chance of them being moved close to civilian targets, so collateral damage may be reduced (Yes, power plants may be near cities, but ammo stock piles can be based in schools, hospitals, etc.)
- One power plant can disrupt the activites of large numbers of the military. Bomb one base, and you stop the activities at the one base. Bomb one power plant and you can disrupt military activities of many military installations in the area (even the hidden ones).

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Cain


The definition of "terrorism" has steadily changed over the years. You're correct to say that war has rules, and those rules were blatantly violated by the Founding Fathers in our American Revolution. Remember how the colonists resorted to "cowardly" guerrilla tactics against the British.

Not being American, we don't study much about the American revolution in school.

But, I want to point out that there can be a small difference between "terrorist" and "guerrilla fighter".

A terrorist concentrates on civilians, and does not necessarily select targets on a strategic bases, but more on opportunity and ability to install fear.

On the other hand, guerrilla fighters often attack military targets. They may do so while dressed in civilian clothes, but they don't always try to target innocent people.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


My Great-Aunt was killed by a bomb in 1940. She was guilty of nothing.. but she want killed by terrorists was she? So according to your logic, so long as war has been declared, you can kill whoever you so chose?

So if I declare war on the US, I can kill as many civillians as I like and not be a terrorist?

You're Great-Aunt was killed by a bomb in 1940. That was very sad. So according to your logic, this somehow makes terrorism okay?

[NightG1]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Terrorism is not the bombing of civilians. Terrorism is the TARGETING of civilians. Firebombing an enemy city during a time of war is not terrorism. Nuclear-bombing an enemy city during a time of war is not terrorism.

-z
The bombing of Coventry, Rotterdam and London were not wonton acts of terrorism?

[NightG1]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Blowing up a busload/planeload/bar-full of people who were guilty of nothing other than being in the wrong place, at the wrong time IS terrorism.
-z
So blowing up a city full of people who were "guilty of nothing other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time" does not qualify as terrorism? You have a dim understanding of the world Rik.

[Tricky]

The word "terrorist" was not in common usage before Israel came on the scene. I never even heard the word until the first of the PLO bombers burst on the scene (literally). I never remember hearing the word used during the Viet Nam War, nor do any Korean vets I know call the tactics used during that war "terrorism". Guerrilla warfare is the more common term for the battle style in Viet Nam.

But lately, the word "terrorist" has become quite the hot-button. Because of its pejorative tone, it is used to describe "the bad guys", whoever you consider them to be. If you want to say that any civilian casualties are okay as long as you are going for a non-civilian target, then every PLO and Hamas bomber could be excused simply by saying he thought there was an Israeli military person that might be on the bus. The US has made these types of claims in Iraq repeatedly to justify bombing private houses.

Actually, someone else here said it best, and I can't find the exact phrase, but it was definately a good one.

"A terrorist is a person who has a bomb, but not an airplane."

[Marvel Frozen]

"A terrorist is a person who has a bomb, but not an airplane."

Or an airplane, but not a bomb.

[Tricky]

Here's an interesting question. Was the flying of the airplane into the Pentagon a terrorist act? No one could argue that the Pentagon is not a military target. Sure, some passengers got killed, but the target was military, so the passengers were just collateral damage. That's the math that the US uses, right?

We also don't know for sure what the fourth airplane was aiming for, but it is suspected it was the White House. Since the US has shown that it is okay to destroy whole complexes if the leader of the country is suspected to be there, then flying a plane into the White House is not a terrorist act either.

[Mr Manifesto]

One could also argue that, since the objective is to cause an enemy to surrender as quickly as possible through 'shock and awe', and attacking the sources of their power, the WTC was a legitimate target as well. Much of the US's power is in her economic power. You can't argue that knocking out the WTC had an effect on the economy. Therefore, the 2-3000 or so who were killed on the WTC sites could be considered 'unforeseen civilian casualites' as well.

As Tricky said, not my math, the American government's.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Tricky
Here's an interesting question. Was the flying of the airplane into the Pentagon a terrorist act? No one could argue that the Pentagon is not a military target. Sure, some passengers got killed, but the target was military, so the passengers were just collateral damage. That's the math that the US uses, right?

We also don't know for sure what the fourth airplane was aiming for, but it is suspected it was the White House. Since the US has shown that it is okay to destroy whole complexes if the leader of the country is suspected to be there, then flying a plane into the White House is not a terrorist act either.


That was a plane filled with civilians. It may qualify as a war crime, like the Iraqi soldiers fighting in civilian clothing. If we do that, we have to declare Bin Laden's declaration of Jihad as a real war, a war against Islam, and if we do, any nation run by an Islamic government is a fair target.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal



That was a plane filled with civilians. It may qualify as a war crime, like the Iraqi soldiers fighting in civilian clothing. If we do that, we have to declare Bin Laden's declaration of Jihad as a real war, a war against Islam, and if we do, any nation run by an Islamic government is a fair target.

Wow. That's some fuzzy logic. I will now run the risk of invoking Godwin's law, but only because I want to use an example that's relevant and well known.

Hitler was a Christian, who said:

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.
Adolf Hitler, from "Mein Kampf", translation by Ralph Mannheim

It seems that Hitler had called the X-ian version of the Jihad. A war between Christians and Jews. Are the Jews now allowed to attack any Christian government as a 'fair target'? If not, why not?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Wow. That's some fuzzy logic. I will now run the risk of invoking Godwin's law, but only because I want to use an example that's relevant and well known.

Hitler was a Christian, who said:


Adolf Hitler, from "Mein Kampf", translation by Ralph Mannheim

It seems that Hitler had called the X-ian version of the Jihad. A war between Christians and Jews. Are the Jews now allowed to attack any Christian government as a 'fair target'? If not, why not?

Sure, name one Christian government.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Sure, name one Christian government.


BTW, that war is over, and we won.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Sure, name one Christian government.

Hmm, let's see, now which country has been run by X-ian leaders since the founding fathers? Can you help me, pep?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
That was a plane filled with civilians. It may qualify as a war crime, like the Iraqi soldiers fighting in civilian clothing.
How is killing a plane full of civilians in order to attack a military target any different than killing a bunch of civilians in a residential area in order to get Saddam?

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
If we do that, we have to declare Bin Laden's declaration of Jihad as a real war, a war against Islam, and if we do, any nation run by an Islamic government is a fair target.
Guess what. We did declare war. (The "War on Terrorism". You must remember. It was in all the newspapers.) All of Islam did not attack us. Only a relatively few crazies.

The war against terrorism started well enough. In Afghanistan, at least, we tried to confine our attacks to those that had attacked us. We made no such effort in Iraq. The first was justified (and had the support of much of the world, including quite a few Muslim countries) and the second was not, and rightly earned the US the label of aggressor. Frankly, that is not a label that I would choose for my country to wear.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Hmm, let's see, now which country has been run by X-ian leaders since the founding fathers? Can you help me, pep?

And anyway, don't change the subject. Does it make it right for the Jews to go after Christian nations or not?

[Jon_in_london]

OK! who voted for "after korea" and "after vietnam" and why!!!

come on. fess up!

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Terrorism is not the bombing of civilians. Terrorism is the TARGETING of civilians. Firebombing an enemy city during a time of war is not terrorism. Nuclear-bombing an enemy city during a time of war is not terrorism.

If you're thinking about the firebombing of Dresden, then that's a case where civilians were targeted deliberatedly. Both the allies and the axis subscribed to the notion of "attacking the enemy's morale" by the means of strategic bombing. The Casablanca directive of 1943 set out the allied bombing strategy as “the progressive destruction of the German military, industrial, and economic system, and the undermining of the morale of the German people to a point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened” - emphasis mine.

The main target for the allied bombing command's strategic bombing during much of WWII were not factories or industrial areas, but cities and city centres in a deliberate targeting of the civilian population.

[Zep]

Deliberately targetting civillians in war is as old as history itself.

WW2 examples:

The German Luftwaffe blitzkreig of 1940/1 was aimed mostly at the fleeing civillian populations on the roads in Poland, Belgium, France and Russia. It was quite deliberately designed to sow terror and thus impede and demoralise the enemy forces.

As mentioned above, Dresden was firebombed by the RAF in 1944 for exactly the same reasons. And also Chemnitz, a few miles away, the next night, to catch the fleeing survivors.

And in March 1945, US B29 bombers firebombed Tokyo with napalm and phosphorus, no high explosives at all, with the deliberate goal of setting fire to as much of the city's wooden residential housing as possible. Almost as many people died on that night as at Hiroshima a few months later.

Everyone does it... And it stinks.

[LW]

Originally posted by Zep

Almost as many people died on that night as at Hiroshima a few months later.


Actually, probably more died in Tokyo than in Hiroshima, though the precise death-toll of neither attack can be established.

[Zep]

Indeed. And horrible to imagine.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Zep
The German Luftwaffe blitzkreig of 1940/1 was aimed mostly at the fleeing civillian populations on the roads in Poland, Belgium, France and Russia. It was quite deliberately designed to sow terror and thus impede and demoralise the enemy forces.


Would you care to explain how you reached that conclusion? I have seen no evidence that the German attack on France in 1940 was aimed mostly at civillians.

Originally posted by Zep
As mentioned above, Dresden was firebombed by the RAF in 1944 for exactly the same reasons. And also Chemnitz, a few miles away, the next night, to catch the fleeing survivors.


I thought the whole deal with Dresden was kind of "Right... who are we going to bomb the crap out of tonight!" "Well, we havent really bombed this Dresden place at all Sir!" "Riiiight then..!!!!"

So obviously it was OK to kill civillians in WWII but between then and now it seems to have become illegal. When did this happen?

And who has voted for after korea/vietnam!! come along now, dont be shy!!! I have a van full of candy!!!

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tricky
The word "terrorist" was not in common usage before Israel came on the scene. I never even heard the word until the first of the PLO bombers burst on the scene (literally). I never remember hearing the word used during the Viet Nam War, nor do any Korean vets I know call the tactics used during that war "terrorism". Guerrilla warfare is the more common term for the battle style in Viet Nam.

But lately, the word "terrorist" has become quite the hot-button. Because of its pejorative tone, it is used to describe "the bad guys", whoever you consider them to be. If you want to say that any civilian casualties are okay as long as you are going for a non-civilian target, then every PLO and Hamas bomber could be excused simply by saying he thought there was an Israeli military person that might be on the bus. The US has made these types of claims in Iraq repeatedly to justify bombing private houses.

Actually, someone else here said it best, and I can't find the exact phrase, but it was definately a good one.

"A terrorist is a person who has a bomb, but not an airplane."

As far as I'm concerned, the first time I heard the term was when it was used to describe the Black September group that murdered the Israeli Olympic athletes back in '72.

It's obvious to any thinking person that there exists no nation that would use it's combat aircraft to murder Olympic athletes. Noi Tricky. A terrorist is not simply a guy with a bomb but no airplane. A terrorist is a guy who's mission is to murder the unarmed and helpless for no other reason than to generate fear. There is no strategic military target...there is only the goal of filling the world's television screens with blood. I'll even go so far as to say that terrorism is a by-product of the modern mass-media. It's a made-for-tv event. Tragedy of the week instead of movie of the week. It's the blood-sport of the disgruntled. If you can't understand that, then there is something very fundamentally wrong with you.

-z

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by rikzilla


As far as I'm concerned, the first time I heard the term was when it was used to describe the Black September group that murdered the Israeli Olympic athletes back in '72.

According to Webster's, the word "Terrorist" dates back to 1795. Of course, in modern useage it is usually used to denote members of political groups which uses methods such as bombing civilian targets, hostage-taking and airplane hijackings.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tricky
Here's an interesting question. Was the flying of the airplane into the Pentagon a terrorist act? No one could argue that the Pentagon is not a military target. Sure, some passengers got killed, but the target was military, so the passengers were just collateral damage. That's the math that the US uses, right?

We also don't know for sure what the fourth airplane was aiming for, but it is suspected it was the White House. Since the US has shown that it is okay to destroy whole complexes if the leader of the country is suspected to be there, then flying a plane into the White House is not a terrorist act either.

What government was represented by the terrorists? Put simply, who do we treat with to end hostilities? If the answer is "I don't know" you are dealing with criminals.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london



I thought the whole deal with Dresden was kind of "Right... who are we going to bomb the crap out of tonight!" "Well, we havent really bombed this Dresden place at all Sir!" "Riiiight then..!!!!"



I was under the impression that Dresden was payback for Coventry. Could be wring, though.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Ed

What government was represented by the terrorists? Put simply, who do we treat with to end hostilities? If the answer is "I don't know" you are dealing with criminals.
The answer is the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Perhaps they are not governments in the strictest sense, but they certainly have a lot of control over the actions of their "people".

But this is nitpicking, Ed. Are you telling me that the exact same actions can be excused as "war" if it is done by a government but is to be condemned as "terrorism" if it is done by a private group? Besides, the Taliban was running the government of Afghanistan. So I guess I ought to correct myself and say that the US did not engage in terrorist activity. Only the Republican Party, eh?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by rikzilla
A terrorist is a guy who's mission is to murder the unarmed and helpless for no other reason than to generate fear. There is no strategic military target...there is only the goal of filling the world's television screens with blood.

Are you seriously telling me, rik, that the Pentagon is not a military target? I don't think there are many targets that could be more military.

To be clear now, I am not talking about the WTC, but the Pentagon attack only. So I ask you (and any others) two direct questions.
Was the 9-11 attack against the Pentagon an act of terrorism or an act of war against a legitimate military target?
Was the US bombing of residential areas in order to kill Saddam and act of terrorism or and act of war against a legitimate military target?

Originally posted by rikzilla
I'll even go so far as to say that terrorism is a by-product of the modern mass-media. It's a made-for-tv event. Tragedy of the week instead of movie of the week. It's the blood-sport of the disgruntled. If you can't understand that, then there is something very fundamentally wrong with you.
The last two Gulf Wars were televised ad nauseum by embedded reporters. In fact, some have called them "made for TV wars." So even by your new refinements to the definition, the US is still terrorist.

And if you can't understand that the Islamic terrorists are not simply killing for the fun of it, but have some very real issues (whether or not you agree with them, as I do not), then there is something very wrong with you.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Ed


I was under the impression that Dresden was payback for Coventry. Could be wring, though.

I dont think thats true, not directly in any case... but after the blitz, there certainly was a strong feeling of "give it 'em back" among the British public at the time.

Initially the British strategy was to bomb targets like factories but they had to do so at night... of course they soon realised they couldnt really hit the city at all, let alone a specific factory therewithin. That all changed with increasingly sophisticted radio-guidance and navigation systems by say end of 1944 and it probably would have been possible to hit specific factories with reasonably good precision, but by then the dogma of area bombing had become too firmly entrenched. Bit tragic for all really....

[rikzilla]

That's not an answer Tricky.

The Taliban is gone, Al Qaida is crippled....does terrorism stop now? Besides, did the Taliban government authorize and implement the attacks of 9/11 in the first place? It can be argued that they did not. Their only proven role was to play host to Osama and company.

Ed's point must somehow be driven into your skull....Wars, horrible as they are, are controlled by governments which can either be defeated in battle, surrendered to, or otherwise negotiated with to end hostilities. Terrorists cannot be defeated in battle...they refuse to step onto a battlefield that they know they cannot survive upon. Terrorists cannot be surrendered to, or negotiated with....to do so would be tantamount to the civilized world comitting suicide. It has been proven that when terrorism is seen to win, or be rewarded, the net effect is more terrorism.

The media daily rewards terrorism by their penchant for: "If it bleeds, it leads" Were I the ultimate censor of the world's media (LOL) I would institute a policy kind of like the sports leagues in the US do. There used to be alot of people who would streak at sports events in order to get on tv and become famous/infamous. Since the NFL/NBA/MLB instituted a policy of cutting away from these specticals, they stopped happening. Now if one wishes to see such antics one must watch UK football. :)

So perhaps if these tragic events were not allowed to be shown, perhaps terrorism would become useless as a tactic?? Who knows? It's not something I really advocate,...just an idea that could work, albeit with a perhaps unacceptable cost. Kind of like blindfolding a horse before leading him over a narrow bridge....?? But we're not horses are we? Terrorism is such a plague...it not only plays upon our fears, it preys upon our freedoms. :( At least war has a beginning, an end, rules, defined targets, battlefields, and strategic objectives.

-z

[Larspeart]

Collateral (sp) damage has always been considered an 'acceptable risk' factor when staging any form of military attack, whether it be bombing, or ground troop movements.

I have never considered civilian casualties as terrorist acts in a war. Al Qaida, being that they were never a) a nation/state, or b) declared war against the US, performed a terrorist attack.

In addition, one has to look strongly at the INTENT of the attack. Was the intent a military target? If a bomb/missile was INTENDED to hit a base, fort, troops, etc, and went off course, then it isn't a terrorist act, as the targets were soldiers. If the INTENT is a civilian target (i.e. the World Trade Centers) and have no military importance, then it IS a terrorist act.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Ed's point must somehow be driven into your skull....Wars, horrible as they are, are controlled by governments which can either be defeated in battle, surrendered to, or otherwise negotiated with to end hostilities.

So are you saying that the American soldiers in the War of Independence were terrorists? After all, they didn't represent a government or a nation. How about the peasants who were involved in the French Revolution? Which government could Louis negotiate with to end hostilities? What about the French resistance during World War II - the French government had surrendered to Germany, and the French resistance weren't under the command of any other government (although they helped and were helped by the allies) - were they terrorists?

No, they weren't - which should demonstrate that "terrorist" is not merely about not being controlled by a country or a government.

[Tricky]

I actually agree with you, rik, on how bad terrorism is. It is a tactic that should not be used by civilized people. That is why it pains me so greatly to see the country that I love, engaging in tactics similar to terrorists. Yes, we were provoked. Yes, we had reasons to do so. Perhaps they weren't good enough reasons.

Al Qaeda had reasons too. Perhaps they weren't good reasons. My argument here is that regardless of how wronged we were, we cannot defeat terrorism by becoming terrorists. By sinking to their level, we acknowledge that terrorist tactics are an acceptible way of conducting war. In my opinion, the invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked terrorist attack on a soverign nation. No amount of hand-wringing over what the terrorists have done to us can justify it.

[Agammamon]

Contrary to popular opinion, firebombing a city is targeting civilians. Today that would be considered an atrocity, especially by the states that did it in WWII. During WWII it was considered that there was no real difference between the civs back home making bombs and the people on the front throwing them.

Would it be considered terrorism to do it today? Probably not. The definition of terrorism is about as hard to nail down as a definition of God but it is generally a small scale action commited by a group that is not officially recognized as a nation. Today firebombing would most likely be considered a war crime.

Of course this still brings into question the morality of MAD but I think that could be gotten around because vast majority of nations that have nukes generally always have had a policy of using them as a last resort. When it comes to survival all bets are off.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tricky
I actually agree with you, rik, on how bad terrorism is. It is a tactic that should not be used by civilized people. That is why it pains me so greatly to see the country that I love, engaging in tactics similar to terrorists. Yes, we were provoked. Yes, we had reasons to do so. Perhaps they weren't good enough reasons.

Al Qaeda had reasons too. Perhaps they weren't good reasons. My argument here is that regardless of how wronged we were, we cannot defeat terrorism by becoming terrorists. By sinking to their level, we acknowledge that terrorist tactics are an acceptible way of conducting war. In my opinion, the invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked terrorist attack on a soverign nation. No amount of hand-wringing over what the terrorists have done to us can justify it.

Damn you Tricky...every time I get worked up to beat you about the head and shoulders, call you bad names and accuse you of molesting small furry animals you post something like that!

You and I will always see things differently, but I am glad we agree on the tragedy before us. I guess this is merely the next evolution of war and man's inhumanity to man? I hope it's not... but perhaps it is. :(

-z

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by rikzilla
That's not an answer Tricky.

The Taliban is gone, Al Qaida is crippled....does terrorism stop now?
-z

Whoa, stop right there...

You aren't up to date (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/central/09/02/afghanistan.fighting.reut/) with current events (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030818-122334-1845r.htm).

[Tricky]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Damn you Tricky...every time I get worked up to beat you about the head and shoulders, call you bad names and accuse you of molesting small furry animals you post something like that!
Sorry. If you like, I can take off on a tangent about handguns and you won't have to lose your righteous indignation buzz. ;)

(And I wouldn't call it "molesting". They seem to enjoy it.)

Originally posted by rikzilla
You and I will always see things differently, but I am glad we agree on the tragedy before us. I guess this is merely the next evolution of war and man's inhumanity to man? I hope it's not... but perhaps it is.
On that, I can agree entirely. Perhaps civilized warfare is an oxymoron, and people will always use whatever weapons and tactics they have available. Did the nuclear bomb scare us into controlling ourselves? Maybe some. We could still use some work though.